Every Democrat in House votes to Shutdown Government

[variant]

Come on be fair.

The party in the outgoing majority has all ready enacted what they wanted. Why would they want to change it?

By contrast, the incoming majority probably had to "compromise" on various issues to "get anything done" and now are taking the opportunity to "rectify" those "expedients."

The incoming majority will have better terms next year so they don't have to compromise much at all really.

They attached some goodies for their friends to a must pass bill because they could, that's about the size of it.

I'm sure you would understand if a Democratic house majority would have shut the government down insisting that we repeal the Bush tax cuts or something like that. And, had they done something like that I would be criticizing them.

 

[JohnLocke]

The incoming majority will have better terms next year so they don't have to compromise much at all really.

They may be able pass bills with "better terms" but the President may be far more likely to veto such bills. At the moment, all parties concerned are at least somewhat motivated to get something accomplished. That simply hasn't been true very often in recent memory. I don't think it would be responsible to let such a rare opportunity to pass by unused.

They attached some goodies for their friends to a must pass bill because they could, that's about the size of it.

Is there pork in the legislation? absolutely. Then again, when hasn't there been pork? The only difference between the Republicans and Democrats on that issue is that the Democrats had all ready enacted their pork. My objection is the characterization of the Democratic Party's position as "a clean bill" as if the legislation they have enacted to date was utterly free of pork.

I'm sure you would understand if a Democratic house majority would have shut the government down insisting that we repeal the Bush tax cuts or something like that. And, had they done something like that I would be criticizing them.

Yep. We're saying the same thing, it seems to me, except while I am very unhappy that it seems to take the threat of going over a fiscal cliff to get anything of substance done, I do not blame members of Congress from recognizing that reality and dealing with it as best they can.

 

[variant]

They may be able pass bills with "better terms" but the President may be far more likely to veto such bills. At the moment, all parties concerned are at least somewhat motivated to get something accomplished. That simply hasn't been true very often in recent memory. I don't think it would be responsible to let such a rare opportunity to pass by unused.

They can at this time simply pass a CR that goes through say February and fight it out then with more of their own people.

Is there pork in the legislation? absolutely. Then again, when hasn't there been pork? The only difference between the Republicans and Democrats on that issue is that the Democrats had all ready enacted their pork. My objection is the characterization of the Democratic Party's position as "a clean bill" as if the legislation they have enacted to date was utterly free of pork.

Loosening restrictions on the type derivative trading that caused the Banks to be bailed out not more than a couple years ago so that they can bet again with gusto and not fear that the government doesn't have their back is a bit more than a bit of "pork".

I call it being sold out.

Yep. We're saying the same thing, it seems to me, except while I am very unhappy that it seems to take the threat of going over a fiscal cliff to get anything of substance done, I do not blame members of Congress from recognizing that reality and dealing with it as best they can.

Slap whatever lipstick you need to on this pig, but you are being sold out.

If this was about "getting stuff done" they would pass a budget and do so without selling us out to their special interest friends, they wouldn't be making sweetheart deals for derivatives traders and exempting Blue Cross from obeying the dictates of the ACA that actually require them to spend money on patient care. They wouldn't be expanding private donations to political campaigns so that they can be even dirtier than before.

 

[JohnLocke]

They can at this time simply pass a CR that goes through say February and fight it out then with more of their own people.

I think it is likely that the pressure on President Obama to actually sign such a CR would be considerably less in February.

Loosening restrictions on the type derivative trading that caused the Banks to be bailed out not more than a couple years ago so that they can bet again with gusto and not fear that the government doesn't have their back is a bit more than a bit of "pork".

I call it being sold out.

Sorry you feel that way. The change in the derivative rules in many instances are actually progressive. Under the current law, FDIC insured banks are able to purchase asset back securities issued by GNMA, Sallie Mae, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Unfortunately for us, GNMA, Sallie Mae, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were some of the worst actors in the subprime asset backed security crash. Do you want to insure banks that purchase securities that are deemed by most in the market to be both overvalued (that is too expensive for what you get) and an extreme credit risk? I don't.

Under current law, local banks were unable to hedge against geographic risk, a particular problem in places subject to large natural disasters like Southern Florida and the Gulf Coast. Without an appropriate hedge, when large disasters hit these areas, the local banks simply fail and the FDIC has to come in a pay off the insured deposits. With an appropriate hedge, more banks are able to withstand such events.

There are other examples, but I'm not sure you'd be persuaded that allowing banks to hold credit default swaps is a good thing, even if, such swaps played a key role in reducing interests and expanding homeownership.

[/QUOTE]
If this was about "getting stuff done" they would pass a budget and do so without selling us out to their special interest friends, they wouldn't be making sweetheart deals for derivatives traders and exempting Blue Cross from obeying the dictates of the ACA that actually require them to spend money on patient care. They wouldn't be expanding private donations to political campaigns so that they can be even dirtier than before.[/QUOTE]

1. The only "sweetheart deal" I can see in the CR for derivatives traders is the ability to sell certain derivative products to covered institutions off a registered exchange. Not sure there's any meat to that, and it is counterbalanced by the creditworthiness and other requirements.

2. Blue Cross? Didn't see that, but is that any different than the Cornhusker Compromise that enabled the ACA to be passed in the first place? Seriously, if you have a citation, I'd appreciate it.

3. Which would you rather have, private citizens who choose to fund a political party's national convention or the government? After Citizens United, it is likely that campaign contribution limits are unconstitutional content based infringements of free speech. So the "big money donors" would still be able to donate that money to the candidate(s) of their choice, so to my mind the "big money" influence is a sunk cost, may as well reduce the burden on the taxpayers by letting them pay for the conventions.

 

[Avid]

... the two situations aren't precisely the same. Republicans had been planning to shut down the government for some time. It was all part of a tactic to hold the entire country hostage so they could extract concessions out of Obama (which is dumb, since extracting concessions out of Obama is like taking candy from a baby).

Democrats never planned to shut anything down. They're responding to Republicans cramming poison pills into the must-pass continuing resolution in order to backdoor through stuff that would never see the light of day otherwise, which (in my opinion, at least) is cynical and dishonest.

This is what I was addressing. This thinking is merely that the other side of an argument is wicked in their motives, but those on our side are blameless. This is the attitude that was addressed by Edwin Willers asking about the Wind Driven Snow.

The opposite of what you say is true. There are very few things that Congress is actually REQUIRED to do under the US Constitution. Approving a Budget is one. However, the Senate could not approve a budget for about 4 years after this pres. was installed in the presidency. On one occasion, the House voted to approve the bloated budget that the pres. sent them, and the Senate voted it down. Not even these Dem's in Congress are that stupid! The idea of using continuing resolutions to fund the gov. is NOT the proper way to do this.

The Repub's should not vote for the CR, but expect the Senate and pres. to do their proper duty and approve a Budget. It is how the gov. is held to account for their expenditures. They are required to do this, and the failure or REFUSAL to pass a Budget is the cause of running a debt so big. Even when #43 was being blamed for incurring so much debt, the largest part was while Dem's in Congress held the purse strings.

... if the government does end up shutting down, I would argue that Republicans own this shut down as much as the previous one. Yes, Democrats will have voted for the CR, but I can't say that I'd blame them considering some of the horse manure that was stuffed into it...

This is addressed in the other point of the OP. Can't blame people who vote as a block against something. You must blame the guys who have almost no power to do anything! While Dem's controlled the Executive and both houses of the Legislative, we still heard about how the abuses were someone else's fault.

This is why Bush #43 was brought up in a post. Still some way to blame Bush. I disagree with much of what he did, but the Current Occupant of the WH has doubled those abuses. When in the US Congress, the Current Occupant said that, for #43 to ask for such an increase in the debt limit, was unpatriotic, but he later asked for TWICE as much! Here is the double standard. It is bad for #43 to spend "A," but for #44 to spend "2xA" is somehow not all that bad!

This is dishonest. If the Repub's actually planned to shutdown the Gov. (never caused a single problem except what the Current Occupant did in response - the actual tantrum!) it was to show a little of the backbone we expect of them. They should have never relented if they were to follow the intent of their base! Right here, you have shown the intent of the Dem's in their plans to BLAME Repub's when the Repub's gave them what they want. If a Dem. controlled Senate votes NOT to fund the Gov., it is THEM you should blame!
.

 

[JohnLocke]

The opposite of what you say is true. There are very few things that Congress is actually REQUIRED to do under the US Constitution. Approving a Budget is one. However, the Senate could not approve a budget for about 4 years after this pres. was installed in the presidency. .

Amen. The longer this "CR" monkey business goes on, the more supportive I am of literally shackling the House, the Senate and the President to their respective seats until they enact a budget.

The some States use sequester to compel passing an actual budget. Heck most of them have to actually pass a balanced budget to boot.

 

[Avid]

... some States use sequester to compel passing an actual budget...

I like the sound of that. They should do that out of obligation to the principle, and they used to... If we really need to force them, we should by that means force them to do the very thing they were elected to do, and swore an oath to perform.

... most of them have to actually pass a balanced budget to boot

So true! The States (at least at this present time,) do not have the power to print money. When they did, money was a form that was approved by the Constitution, because of the problems that came BEFORE the US Constitution limited them. The US Constitution states:

"No State shall…" "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;" (Article I, Sec. 10.)​

You see this, and I see this, but the power hungry crowd, and the "something for nothing" crowd only see a limit to their ability to get more for themselves.
.